----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 4:49 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> I wrote "invasion" and you've just written "intervention." Are we talking > about the same thing? Yes. > > In > > particular, I'd be interested in seeing what steps that were > > stronger than the sactions we imposed, but not hurtful to the people > > of Iraq could be imposed. But, given the facts, I think it would be > > much more reasonable to count on his regime continuing than falling. > > If you believe this was a war of last resort, that there was no hope of > removing him from power without an invasion, then we disagree. I was asking > if that is your firm belief or not. It is. > > After 11 years of failure in that regard, I think > > it is fair to ask for a specific plan and why it would have had a > > good chance to suceed where the previous sanctions have failed. > > How about putting far more force behind inspections? A force that operates > more like a police action, in which collateral damage is largely unacceptable? Look at the historical police actions. They don't work against well armed fighters. For a police action to result in the overthrow of Hussian, the Republican guard would have had to let lightly armed units walk in and arrest Hussian. > > Nothing has worked ideally. But, things have gotten better. Life is > > better in E. Germany and most of Eastern Europe after the Cold War > > was won by the US. Life in the Balkins is better after we acted. > > I hear this as that the end justified the means -- you're describing the > outcomes, not how we got there. Is that what you're saying? What I am saying is that one has to weigh both the outcomes and how we got there to determine the most moral action. One cannot weigh the actual cost of the means and the actual result against the outcome of a vauge idealized plan. I think one is morally obliged to consider the likely outcome of choices not just hope for the best. Analogies are risky, but let me try one. Let's say someone has serious heart problems, and the best chance for helping him that someone can come up with now is a risky surgery. > > But there is no evidence that > > using just the right technique on potential perpetrators will stop > > violence. > > I believe that humanity in modern times has been much better at avoiding war > than it has been throughout most of history. Is there some reason not to hope > for that progress to continue? Or do you disagree with my premise? Well, > > The best is oft the enemy of the good. I do not see the > > morality in refusing to accept the consequences of one's decision to > > not act, as well as the consequences of action. > > Who are you talking about? I hear a new issue here. When I stated I was against the Iraq war I also stated that I acknowledged that this would result in the continuation of widespread torture and murder in Iraq. I don't see that in your posts. Rather, I see a hope that some vauge untried plan would work without cost. Gautam quoted a number of people working in the area of international ethics as well as the general question of war and peace. He stated that there was a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force Hussain out. Given the fact that this is part of his field of study, I would bet that, while he may have missed one of them stating that there might be a way to topple Hussain short of war, he has a pretty good feel for the consensus. > > > The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I > > believe > > > -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat. > > If > > > the answer to both is no, can war be justified? > > > > Sure. Otherwise, it was immoral to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda. > > To what action are you referring? I don't recall that we declared war on > Rwanda at any point. We eventually intervened in an internal war, didn't we? There was a meaningless police action after the genocide had already taken place. That's what we did. The only way to stop the genocide was to have a realistic threat to use overwhelming force to stop it. And, realistic means that you would have to actually go in if the government decided to conclude that you were willing to threaten war, but you were not willing to risk collateral damage to stop the genocide. We had two realistic choices: being willing to go to war to stop it or standing by and letting it happen. Wishing for a third choice would not have helped. > > The Dutch would have been morally oblidged to step aside to permit > > the genocide in Serbicida. > > Reductio ad absurdum. Police actions are not war. OK, let's say, the Korean Police Action notwithstanding, that we can distinguish between police actions and war. The Serbians came with significant force. They were not going to be stopped by lightly armed police. Repeated requests for authorization to use greater force (serious air attacks) were denied. In essence, if you want to distinguish between war and police actions, the only hope to fufill the UN's promise to protect the people in Serbicidia was a willingness to use war against the Serbs. When the UN insisted only police actions were allowable, the fate of the people in Serbicidia was sealed. > > This would clearly allow wars to defend the lives and liberty of others. > > Yes, and it begs rather large questions of the means of war and circumstances > under which such an undertaking is moral. Otherwise, couldn't one justify > nuclear weapons to stop a litterbug? Look at Gautam's four criterion. How would using a nuclear weapon to stop a litter bug benefit the non litterer's around him? Why isn't the arguement that the war must be, when all the costs and benefits are added, better for the people in the theater of war sufficiently stringent? > > Ends justifying the means again, it sounds to me..>? And that's a big "if." > I find it hard to believe there can be peace in Iraq as long as the United > States is in charge there. Is the enormity of the resentment not obvious? Sure it is....and it would have been smaller if we actually were able to provide power and water. But, at the same time, the feelings are clearly mixed. The most influential figure in Iraq is not calling for immediate withdrawal. The Iraqies seem to be doing a marvelous job of putting together a government. If we can only show modest competence in transitioning security to Iraqi forces, there is actually a chance that a government as good as Turkey might emerge. The question now is resentment of the US enough for the majority, or a significant minority, to actively back the insurgents. 6 months ago, I would have said yes; now I'm surprised to say that I'm leaning towards no. > I believe that working toward social and economic justice would be an > enormously effective counter-recruiting effort. Reducing poverty and > oppression will make it very hard for the fanatics to find anyone to sign up > to be terrorists. We seem to be accomplishing the opposite these days. How do we reduce poverty and opression in countries where we have no power? > > Success would be good for the US, but it would also > > improve the lives of millions in the Mid-East....who are our > > brothers and sisters. Helping them can't be intrinsically immoral. > > Is that a fair statement without factoring in the costs? Yes. It isn't intrisically immoral to help someone improve their lives. Now, one can make a pragmatic arguement against it: the cost to them outweighs the desired help, but that doesn't make the desire to stop torture and opression wrong. >Aren't you arguing > from your conclusion by saying that we are helping? It's a tautology -- > helping is good, there for helping is not bad. Well, what if we're not > helping? If we are not helping, then it is a mistake. But any argument against the war should, IMHO, weigh the costs of not going in as well as the costs of intervention. I was opposed because I thought the net costs of intervention was higher. So, I very much agree that we have to factor in the costs. If the costs are too high, then we need to reluctantly not go in. But it doesn't help to pretend there is an easy solution. Acknowledging the costs of one's own position can be very helpful in keeping dialogs reasonable. I'll give an example. I sat next to a National Guard lawyer the summer after the war started. The subject came up and I told him I thought going in was a mistake. He started listing the human costs of Hussein staying in power. I stopped him quickly by telling him "I agree" and then laying out my estimation of the costs. We were pretty close. I told him that my problem with the war was with our ability to win the peace afterwards. We ended up with a long, amiable discussion of pros and cons. IMHO, the foundation of this type of discussion was my willingness to quickly acknowledge reasonable points of his...as well as his willingness to reciprocate. We argued the point like two people on the same team...not enemies. So, I'd argue that a realistic non-interventionist needs to acknowledge the human suffering that could have been prevented if only we intervened. They can justify this several different ways: intervention causes more suffering; killing is always wrong, even if more lives are saved than lost, there are other specific techniques that have a good chance of working at a lower cost. But, if they choose the last, they can't be overly optimistic about the chances of those techniques working. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
